Why Does the Auto Industry Oppose Safety Improvements? — Part 1, CA Senate Bill 961

(This is Part 1 of a multi-part series on the history of the Auto Industry’s opposition to major safety improvements for vehicles.)

On Monday, June 17, California State Senator Scott Wiener brought his bill, SB 961, to the Assembly Transportation Committee, and the Senator didn’t mince words about the danger flying across California streets every minute of every day. 

“We are in a traffic safety crisis,” Wiener said. “More than 400 Californians die every year on our roadways. That is a 25 percent increase in the last five years, and speeding is a major factor in many of these fatalities. Road deaths are up across the country, and I want to be clear that this is not normal; this is not the way it is in other wealthy countries. The number of people dying on our roads is a policy choice that our state and country have made by prioritizing speed over so many other things.” 

SB 961 would require every passenger vehicle, motor truck, or bus manufactured or sold in the state to be equipped with a passive intelligent speed assistance system by 2030. A passive intelligent speed assistance system is “a common-sense piece of existing technology,” Wiener said, that would alert drivers when they’ve surpassed 10 miles over the speed limit. 

After Wiener introduced the bill, SAFE Executive Director Damian Kevitt spoke frankly about SB 961’s importance in calming our streets and making them less deadly.

“Let’s be honest: this bill is not going to stop the roughly 2.5 percent of drivers who drive at the most dangerous, reckless speeds and with little regard for others,” Kevitt said. Where the bill would help, Kevitt said, is in cases like that of Tisa and Melissa, two drivers who were rushing to work, not paying attention to their speed, and struck a pedestrian and cyclist, respectively. 

If either woman’s car had been equipped with a passive intelligent speed assistance system, things may have turned out differently, Kevitt said. As it stands, both Tisa and Melissa have dedicated their lives to taking responsibility for their actions and ensuring similar tragedies don’t strike again.

According to the California Office of Traffic Safety, more than one-third of all traffic fatalities in the state in 2023 were speeding-related. Passive intelligent speed assistance systems can help deter drivers from speeding, which in turn decreases deaths and the severity of injuries in a crash.

“We know from various studies in other countries that these speed warnings are quite effective at getting people to slow down,” Wiener said. 

And, as Wiener noted, the proposed regulations in the version of SB 961 being debated that day were not onerous on car manufacturers and were, in fact, much more conservative than they’d been in Wiener’s original bill. 

“The original version of this bill had a requirement for what we call an active speed governor that would physically prevent the car from going more than 10 miles over the speed limit. I listened, and I heard that that was not going to fly, so we moved to this passive warning approach, which is highly effective,” Wiener said. “This is technology that exists today. We’re not asking the industry to come up with something new.”

After Wiener delineated all the ways that SB 961 had been compromised on behalf of auto interests — including exemptions for motor trucks over 8,500 pounds and “certain passenger vehicles” — and Kevitt and four others voiced support, it was the opposition’s turn at the microphone. 

John Moffatt and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation opposed SB 961 first; Moffatt was followed by representatives for the Specialty Equipment Market Association, the California Trucking Association, the California Motorcycle Dealers Association, the California New Car Dealers Association, the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Motorcycle Industry Council, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, Toyota and Mercedes Benz — all of whom rose in opposition.  

The main reason given by the above is that CA shouldn’t try to save lives on its own. Instead, it should wait for the Federal Government, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, to take many more years to study, propose regulations, get feedback and input from stakeholders, and then decide what regulations to issue, if any at all. 

All the while, based on historical records, the automobile industry, including the very same companies who spoke out against SB 961, will do all they can to stall or prevent any federal regulations about intelligent speed assistance from being issued. 

Meanwhile, the EU has already issued its requirements for new cars being sold in Europe and it’s very similar to what is being proposed by SB 961. 

This fierce industry opposition to even marginal safety regulations is not a new story; since the rise of automobiles, there have been those fighting for safer cars and safer streets — and far more moneyed interests trying to keep cars rolling off the factory floor and flooding our neighborhoods. 

This summer, we at SAFE will explore the history of auto industry opposition to legislation like SB 961 and highlight past strategies that have helped safe streets advocates succeed in the face of such formidable opposition.

This week, SB 961 passed the transportation committee by a vote of 9 to 4. But the opposition remains as it enters the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. 

Want to read more? Subscribe to our newsletter for Part 2 of Louie’s examination of the auto industry’s opposition to reform.